I'm not trying to start an argument or anything. I only mean this response respectfully, however the historical evidence doesn't back this up. Nearly every country that has this kind of welfare in place is either suffering from population decrease, or has at some point in the past. It's nice that it lines up with women's liberation these days, however the policies were started specifically to combat population issues. Think of it kind of like the American Civil War. The north created this mythology that they fought for equality after the war when no such reason existed while it was going on. Similarly the notion that these policies were adopted primarily for feminist reasons is pretty much not true.

Or, why can't we just say that--as in a lot of cases--there's a dynamic (and, in the real-time moment, often unpredictable) interplay between moral/ethical values and demographic/practical realities? You don't have to straw-man a belief in the importance of ethical imperatives (e.g., abolitionism, with the sleight-of-hand shift into "equality" propping up the straw-man argument) as if that kind of belief is blithely unaware of and divorced from practical politics. All this does is prop up a feeling that a cynical/practical explanation is superior.

As just one example, Sweden's parental leave policy has been designed to encourage men to take more leave, as a means of improving workplace equality and the contribution of both parents to child-rearing. I don't doubt that it has secondary benefits in terms of encouraging having more children, but the policy wouldn't have to be constructed as it is if that were the only goal.

I chose my words carefully. I didn't say no one fought the war for abolition (although most didn't). I said that the north created a mythology that it fought the war for equality. This isn't cynicism, it's an evidence based answer. Here is why: An examination of the historical record gives us intriguing instances where men and women sometimes believed in the absolute equality of all races, usually for religious reasons. The vast majority (and I mean VAST) believed no such thing. Most northern abolitionists didn't want to abolish slavery because they thought it was injurious to slaves, but rather because they believed that it took away potential jobs for poor whites. Indeed, a large portion of the abolitionists believed that blacks would never fully assimilate into American culture and, instead, favored sending them to Africa (and many were). So the mythology is created when northerners of a more modern era look back and paint their own ideals onto the past. They assume that their ancestors fought against slave holders because they must have felt similarly to us. This, alas, is far from he truth.

What CM is saying is definitely true in France - public policy as a tool to actively promote population growth goes back to the 19th century (trying and failing to keep up with the Germans). In the Nordic countries I'm not so sure (but I'd be doubtful).

I don't doubt that it has secondary benefits in terms of encouraging having more children

It's called historical counterposition. It is when people take a past event and recreate the meaning of it to fit an agenda. And so in America we learn that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery, or we learn that the Revolution was fought over individual liberties.

The irony of posts about Union supporters mythologizing the Civil War is too rich.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caustic Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Six

I don't doubt that it has secondary benefits in terms of encouraging having more children

It's called historical counterposition. It is when people take a past event and recreate the meaning of it to fit an agenda. And so in America we learn that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery, or we learn that the Revolution was fought over individual liberties.

No shit. But you keep writing things as though people only ever do things for one reason or their reasons don't change over time or everyone who does the same thing does it for the same reason. You say you're trying to be careful with your words but you're not. And your editing obscures my point about how Sweden's policy is actually constructed.

The irony of your posts about Union supporters mythologizing the Civil War is also rich and itself reeks of propaganda.

The irony of your posts about Union supporters mythologizing the Civil War is also rich and itself reeks of propaganda.

I'm sorry to have offended. I am reading the historical record as I see it. I claim no propaganda, you see I'm neither northern nor southern. I do think that it's best not to approach history from too much of an emotional standpoint because then it makes it difficult to see that there is indeed a northern mythology around the war. This isn't to say that there isn't also a southern mythology, I doubt anyone could reasonably argue that there isn't. I will give you some advise, don't become emotionally invested in your interpretation of the past. It makes you toss around fallacious accusations.